1. Society cannot be trusted to make decisions for individuals
Society cannot be trusted to make decisions for individuals. Each of us knows our own life best.
Experimentation is the only way to determine what ways of living our best.
Only by making choices for ourselves can we develop our ability to think practically and make decisions for ourselves. (even bad decisions are good.

2. What about indirect harm?
Objection: Actions that influence me almost always influence other people as well.
Mill: You can be held accountable for the harm to others (failing to take care of your family, not paying back debts, etc.) But not for gambling, or being a drunk.

3. Some choices are made during extreme psychological stress (suicide)
Someone may know the facts of the case and discount them, coming to an irrational conclusion.
We are justified, sometimes, in forcing people to make decisions that are really for their own good.

4. Test cases Laws restricting drug use Gun Control laws Seatbelt laws
Pornography
Polygamy
Gay Marriage
Suicide
What would Mill say about each of these cases? When, if ever do you think the State should intervene in a person’s life?

5. Dworkin’s defense of paternalism
Paternalism is justified if it enhances a person’s ability to make decisions later on.
Paternalism is justified to prevent a person from making irrational decisions that are harmful to their own well being.

6. Deciding to take an addicting drug prevents you from being able to make decisions for yourself in a rational manner. So the state is justified in intervening
Refusing a blood transfusion or refusing to put on your seatbelt is acting in a way that goes against your own well being.
Suicide is often chosen in emotionally stressful times.